Treaty Formation and Ratification

Treaty Formation and Ratification

Treaties are among the most important instruments through which states create legal obligations under international law. They may establish peace, regulate trade, protect human rights, define borders, govern international organizations, regulate the use of the oceans, address environmental problems, or establish rules for cooperation in areas ranging from aviation to taxation and criminal justice.

But a treaty does not become legally binding simply because representatives of states meet and sign a document. International law distinguishes several stages in the treaty-making process. Negotiation, adoption, authentication, signature, consent to be bound, ratification, accession, entry into force, and registration can each have different legal consequences.

Treaty formation therefore involves a process rather than a single event.

A useful starting point is the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), the principal international instrument codifying many rules governing treaties. The Convention addresses how treaties are concluded, interpreted, amended, and terminated. Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute provides a useful overview of the subject in its discussion of Treaties and International Agreements.

The central question is not merely whether a document has been signed. The more important question is when and how a state has expressed its legal consent to be bound by the treaty.

---

What Is Treaty Formation?

Treaty formation is the legal process through which an international agreement is negotiated, adopted, authenticated, accepted by the participating states, and ultimately becomes binding upon the parties that have expressed valid consent to be bound.

The process can vary considerably depending on the treaty.

Some agreements are negotiated and signed relatively quickly. Others may take years or decades to develop. Multilateral treaties may involve dozens or hundreds of states and may require extensive negotiations concerning language, reservations, institutional mechanisms, enforcement, and implementation.

The form of a treaty may also vary.

A treaty may be called a:

• convention;
• covenant;
• protocol;
• charter;
• statute;
• agreement;
• accord;
• pact;
• exchange of instruments; or
• memorandum or other formal international agreement.

The title is not necessarily decisive. What matters is whether the instrument constitutes an international agreement governed by international law and whether the parties intended to create legal obligations.

Treaty formation therefore combines political negotiation with legal consent.

---

The Basic Stages of Treaty Formation

Although treaty-making procedures vary, a simplified sequence is:

Negotiation → Adoption → Authentication → Signature → Consent to be Bound → Ratification or Other Approval → Entry into Force

Not every treaty follows every stage in precisely this form.

For example, some treaties are concluded through signature alone. Others require ratification. Some permit accession by states that did not participate in the original negotiations. Certain treaties may become binding upon acceptance or approval rather than formal ratification.

Understanding the differences is essential.

---

1. Negotiation

Treaty formation usually begins with negotiation.

States determine what problem they want to address and attempt to agree on legal language capable of satisfying their respective interests.

Negotiations can occur:

• directly between governments;
• through diplomatic conferences;
• within international organizations;
• through specialized international institutions;
• through regional organizations; or
• through specially established negotiating forums.

Negotiation may involve diplomats, government ministries, technical experts, lawyers, military officials, economists, scientists, or other specialists depending on the subject.

For example, a treaty concerning maritime boundaries may require international lawyers, naval authorities, geographers, and technical experts. A treaty concerning environmental protection may require scientists and environmental regulators as well as diplomats.

Negotiation is not itself consent to be bound.

A state may participate extensively in negotiations and ultimately refuse to become a party to the treaty.

---

2. Drafting the Treaty

Negotiations eventually produce proposed treaty language.

Drafting is legally significant because treaty obligations depend upon the precise wording of the instrument.

Small linguistic differences can have major consequences.

A treaty may establish that a state “shall” perform a particular obligation, while another provision may state that a state “should” take a particular measure. The first formulation generally expresses a stronger mandatory obligation, while the second may reflect a recommendation or less rigid commitment, depending on context.

Negotiators therefore consider:

• definitions;
• obligations;
• exceptions;
• territorial scope;
• temporal scope;
• institutional procedures;
• dispute settlement;
• enforcement mechanisms;
• amendment procedures;
• reservations;
• withdrawal;
• termination; and
• entry into force.

Drafting also involves deciding what the treaty does not regulate.

The absence of a provision may sometimes be deliberate.

---

3. Adoption of the Treaty Text

Once negotiations have produced a final or sufficiently developed text, the participating states may formally adopt it.

Adoption means that the negotiating parties establish the text of the treaty.

Adoption should be distinguished from consent to be legally bound.

A state can participate in adopting the text without necessarily becoming a party to the resulting treaty.

This distinction is important because the treaty-making process separates agreement on what the treaty says from agreement to be legally bound by it.

In multilateral negotiations, adoption may occur through voting or consensus according to the applicable procedure.

---

4. Authentication of the Treaty Text

After adoption, the treaty text may be authenticated.

Authentication establishes that the text is considered authoritative and definitive.

This can be accomplished through procedures agreed upon by the negotiating states. Depending on the circumstances, authentication may involve:

• signature;
• initialling;
• signature of the final act;
• or another agreed procedure.

Authentication is concerned primarily with establishing the authoritative text. It is therefore conceptually different from the later question of whether a state has consented to be bound.

---

Signature of a Treaty

Signature is one of the most misunderstood stages of treaty formation.

People often assume:

“The treaty was signed, therefore the state is legally bound by everything in it.”

That is not necessarily true.

The legal effect of signature depends upon the treaty and the circumstances in which it was signed.

In some treaties, signature itself constitutes consent to be bound.

In others, signature merely indicates that the state accepts the negotiated text subject to a later act of ratification, acceptance, or approval.

The treaty itself may specify which procedure applies.

Domestic constitutional law may also determine who has authority to sign international agreements and what additional steps are required before the state can become internationally bound.

---

Signature Subject to Ratification

Many important treaties are signed subject to ratification.

In this situation, signature does not by itself constitute the state’s final consent to be bound.

Instead, signature confirms that the state has completed the negotiating stage and intends to consider whether to become legally bound through the appropriate domestic and international procedures.

Ratification therefore performs a distinct legal function.

A state may sign a treaty and later decide not to ratify it.

This explains why a treaty can be widely signed but have relatively few parties.

---

What Is Ratification?

Ratification is the formal international act by which a state confirms its consent to be bound by a treaty after signature when the treaty requires ratification.

The precise domestic procedure varies from country to country.

At the international level, ratification communicates the state’s definitive consent to be bound.

At the domestic level, however, ratification may involve constitutional institutions such as:

• the head of state;
• the executive;
• the legislature;
• a parliamentary chamber;
• or another constitutionally authorized body.

The international and domestic dimensions should not be confused.

A country’s constitution may require parliamentary approval before its government can ratify a particular treaty. But the international legal effect ultimately depends upon the state’s valid expression of consent through the procedure recognized by international law.

---

Why Do Treaties Require Ratification?

Ratification serves several purposes.

First, it provides states with an opportunity to conduct a second-level review after negotiations have concluded.

A government may have negotiated the treaty, but domestic authorities may still need to examine:

• its constitutional implications;
• financial consequences;
• effects on national legislation;
• national security implications;
• human rights consequences;
• institutional responsibilities; and
• compatibility with existing international commitments.

Second, ratification can prevent a negotiator’s signature from automatically creating extensive international obligations without the approval required by the state’s constitutional system.

Third, ratification gives the state an opportunity to confirm that it genuinely intends to become a party.

---

Ratification Is Not Always Required

Not every treaty requires ratification.

International law permits different forms of expressing consent to be bound.

Depending on the treaty, a state may express consent through:

• signature;
• exchange of instruments;
• ratification;
• acceptance;
• approval;
• accession; or
• another agreed means.

The treaty itself commonly determines which method applies.

Therefore, the question should not be:

“Was the treaty ratified?”

The better question is:

“What method of consent to be bound does the treaty require, and has the state completed that method?”

---

Acceptance and Approval

Acceptance and approval are alternatives to ratification that may perform substantially similar functions.

A treaty may provide that a state can become bound through acceptance or approval rather than ratification.

The terminology may reflect differences in domestic constitutional practice, diplomatic procedure, or the negotiated design of the treaty.

From the perspective of international law, what matters is whether the state has validly expressed its consent to be bound in the manner provided by the treaty.

---

Accession

Accession is another important method of becoming a party to a treaty.

Accession generally allows a state to become a party to a treaty that it did not sign during the original period when the treaty was open for signature.

This is especially important for multilateral treaties.

For example, a treaty may initially be negotiated and signed by a group of states. Years later, another state may decide that it wants to become a party. If the treaty permits accession, that state may complete the necessary accession procedure.

Accession therefore allows the treaty’s membership to expand beyond the states that participated in its original signature process.

---

The Difference Between Signature, Ratification, and Accession

The distinctions can be summarized conceptually.

Signature may authenticate the text and, depending on the treaty, may or may not constitute final consent to be bound.

Ratification is the formal confirmation of consent to be bound where the treaty requires ratification following signature.

Accession generally allows a state that did not sign the treaty during the original signature period to become a party later.

These are different legal acts.

---

Domestic Approval and International Consent

One of the most important distinctions in treaty law concerns the relationship between domestic constitutional procedures and international obligations.

A state’s constitution may establish an elaborate procedure for approving treaties.

For example, the executive branch may negotiate and sign a treaty, while a legislature must approve it before the executive can ratify it.

That is a matter of domestic constitutional law.

International law asks a different question:

Has the state validly expressed its consent to be bound?

The distinction becomes particularly important when domestic authorities fail to follow constitutional procedures.

International law generally does not permit a state simply to avoid an international obligation by asserting that its internal law was violated, although the Vienna Convention recognizes a narrow rule concerning manifest violations of a fundamental rule of internal law regarding competence to conclude treaties.

This reflects a broader principle of international law: states cannot ordinarily use their internal legal systems as a general excuse for failing to perform international obligations.

---

Who Has Authority to Conclude Treaties?

International law recognizes that certain state officials possess authority to represent the state in treaty-making.

The most senior state representatives generally have authority by virtue of their office.

These may include:

• heads of state;
• heads of government;
• foreign ministers.

Other representatives may require appropriate authorization, commonly described as full powers.

The purpose of this system is to establish whether a person negotiating or signing an international agreement actually possesses authority to represent the state.

Treaty law therefore combines international diplomacy with rules concerning representation.

---

Consent to Be Bound

The central legal concept in treaty formation is consent to be bound.

International treaty law does not treat negotiation alone as sufficient.

Nor does participation in a diplomatic conference necessarily create treaty obligations.

The state must express its consent through an internationally recognized method.

Consent may be expressed by:

• signature;
• exchange of instruments constituting a treaty;
• ratification;
• acceptance;
• approval;
• accession;
• or another agreed method.

This principle protects state sovereignty while allowing states to create binding international obligations.

---

Entry Into Force

Even after a state has expressed consent to be bound, the treaty may not immediately become operational.

The treaty must generally enter into force according to its provisions.

The treaty itself may specify:

• a particular date;
• a minimum number of ratifications;
• ratification by particular states;
• a specified waiting period;
• or another condition.

For example, a treaty might provide that it enters into force thirty days after the deposit of the twentieth instrument of ratification.

Until the specified conditions are satisfied, the treaty may not yet have entered into force for the state in question.

---

Deposit of Instruments

Multilateral treaties frequently designate a depositary.

The depositary may be:

• a state;
• an international organization;
• or an official of an international organization.

States transmit instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval, or accession to the depositary.

The depositary performs administrative and legal functions such as:

• receiving instruments;
• notifying participating states;
• maintaining treaty records;
• determining when procedural conditions have been satisfied;
• and communicating relevant developments to the parties.

The depositary therefore plays an important institutional role in multilateral treaty administration.

---

Bilateral and Multilateral Treaties

Treaty formation can look different depending on the number of parties.

Bilateral Treaties

A bilateral treaty involves two parties.

Negotiations may be conducted directly between two governments. Consent may be expressed through signature, ratification, exchange of instruments, or another agreed procedure.

Because there are only two parties, the procedural structure is often comparatively straightforward.

Multilateral Treaties

A multilateral treaty involves multiple parties.

The process can be considerably more complex because states must agree not only on the substantive rules but also on procedures governing:

• membership;
• reservations;
• amendments;
• entry into force;
• dispute settlement;
• institutional structures;
• withdrawal; and
• interpretation.

Multilateral treaty-making is therefore often a form of international legislative activity, although treaties remain based upon the consent of states rather than functioning exactly like domestic legislation.

---

Reservations During Treaty Formation

A reservation allows a state, under specified conditions, to exclude or modify the legal effect of certain treaty provisions in their application to that state.

Reservations are particularly important in multilateral treaties.

A state may agree with most of a treaty but object to one provision for constitutional, political, religious, economic, or other reasons.

Instead of refusing to join the treaty altogether, the state may formulate a reservation if the treaty permits it and the reservation is compatible with the applicable rules.

Reservations therefore create a balance between:

universal participation and uniform application of treaty obligations.

However, states cannot necessarily make unlimited reservations. A reservation may be impermissible if the treaty prohibits reservations or if the reservation is incompatible with the treaty’s object and purpose.

---

Objections to Reservations

Other states may object to a reservation.

An objection does not necessarily produce the same legal result in every circumstance.

Depending upon the treaty and the nature of the objection, the relationship between the reserving state and the objecting state may be affected differently.

This is one reason why multilateral treaty participation can produce a complex network of different legal relationships among the parties.

A single treaty may therefore apply somewhat differently between different pairs of states.

---

Treaty Entry Into Force and Provisional Application

Some treaties permit provisional application.

Provisional application allows states to apply some or all treaty provisions before the treaty formally enters into force.

This mechanism can be useful when states need immediate cooperation but domestic or international procedures for full entry into force will take time.

Provisional application is nevertheless distinct from ordinary entry into force.

Its legal consequences depend upon the treaty and the agreement of the participating states.

---

Registration and Publication

International treaties may also be subject to registration requirements.

Article 102 of the United Nations Charter provides for registration and publication of treaties and international agreements concluded by UN members.

The purpose includes transparency and public accessibility.

The Charter also provides that a party to an international agreement that has not been registered in accordance with the applicable requirements may not invoke that agreement before a United Nations organ.

Registration therefore serves an important institutional and transparency function.

---

Treaty Formation and Good Faith

Good faith is fundamental to treaty relations.

States negotiating international agreements are expected to act honestly and consistently with the legal framework governing treaty formation.

Good faith becomes particularly important when:

• negotiating language;
• interpreting commitments;
• making reservations;
• exercising procedural rights;
• completing ratification;
• and implementing treaty obligations.

Treaty law cannot function effectively if states treat negotiations merely as political statements with no connection to legal responsibility.

---

The Obligation Not to Defeat the Object and Purpose of a Treaty

An important rule applies even before a treaty has entered into force in the ordinary sense.

Under the Vienna Convention, a state that has signed a treaty subject to ratification, acceptance, or approval is generally required to refrain from acts that would defeat the treaty’s object and purpose, unless the state makes clear that it does not intend to become a party.

This creates an intermediate legal position.

The state may not yet be fully bound by all substantive treaty obligations, but its conduct is not necessarily legally irrelevant.

This distinction demonstrates why treaty formation should be understood as a process rather than a simple transition from “not bound” to “bound.”

---

When Does a Treaty Become Binding?

There is no universal answer such as:

“A treaty becomes binding when it is signed.”

The answer depends upon the treaty and the method of consent chosen.

A treaty may become binding for a particular state:

• upon signature;
• upon ratification;
• upon acceptance or approval;
• upon accession;
• upon exchange of instruments;
• or upon another agreed event.

In addition, the treaty may contain conditions concerning the number of participating states or a specified waiting period.

The legal researcher must therefore examine the treaty’s own entry-into-force provisions.

---

Treaty Formation and Domestic Legislation

Treaty formation should also be distinguished from domestic implementation.

A state may become internationally bound by a treaty but still need to enact domestic legislation to implement its obligations.

For example, an international treaty may require states to criminalize particular conduct. The treaty may establish the international obligation, while national legislation creates the domestic offense and establishes the procedures through which domestic courts enforce it.

The international obligation and the domestic legal mechanism are therefore related but distinct.

This distinction is particularly important in constitutional systems where treaties and domestic statutes occupy different positions within the hierarchy of domestic law.

---

Self-Executing and Non-Self-Executing Treaties

In some legal systems, an additional question arises after treaty ratification:

Does the treaty operate directly within domestic law, or does domestic legislation have to implement it?

In the United States, this question is often discussed using the concepts of self-executing and non-self-executing treaties.

A self-executing treaty may operate domestically without additional implementing legislation, subject to the relevant constitutional and judicial framework.

A non-self-executing treaty may require implementing legislation before its provisions can be directly enforced in domestic courts.

This is principally a question of domestic legal effect.

It does not necessarily determine whether the United States is internationally bound by the treaty.

---

Treaty Formation Is Different from Treaty Interpretation

Once a treaty has entered into force, another set of legal questions arises.

Courts and international tribunals may need to determine what particular provisions mean.

This is treaty interpretation.

Formation asks:

How did the state become bound?

Interpretation asks:

What does the resulting obligation mean?

The two subjects are closely related but should not be confused.

The Vienna Convention contains rules concerning both.

---

Treaty Formation and Invalid Consent

Consent to a treaty must be legally valid.

International law recognizes circumstances in which consent may be challenged.

The Vienna Convention addresses matters such as:

• error;
• fraud;
• corruption of a representative;
• coercion of a representative;
• coercion of a state by the threat or use of force;
• and conflict with a peremptory norm of general international law.

These rules demonstrate that the principle of consent does not mean that every apparent agreement automatically produces a valid treaty.

International law regulates the circumstances under which consent is legally effective.

---

Coercion and Treaty Formation

A treaty concluded through prohibited coercion raises fundamental questions about its validity.

There is an important distinction between political pressure and legally prohibited coercion.

International diplomacy frequently involves bargaining, pressure, economic incentives, and strategic negotiation. Not every form of pressure invalidates consent.

The Vienna Convention addresses more serious forms of coercion involving the threat or use of force against a state in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the United Nations Charter.

The rule protects the integrity of international consent.

---

Treaties and Peremptory Norms

Treaty formation is also limited by jus cogens, or peremptory norms of general international law.

A treaty that conflicts, at the time of its conclusion, with a peremptory norm is void under the Vienna Convention.

This means that state consent is not completely unlimited.

States possess broad authority to create international obligations through treaties, but they cannot validly contract out of fundamental peremptory rules recognized by international law.

---

Treaty Formation and State Sovereignty

Treaty formation illustrates the relationship between sovereignty and international law.

States are sovereign, but sovereignty includes the capacity to enter into international agreements.

By voluntarily expressing consent to be bound, a state assumes international obligations.

This is not necessarily a contradiction.

A sovereign state can exercise its sovereignty by undertaking legal commitments.

The important point is that treaty obligations are generally based upon legally recognizable consent rather than imposed through an international legislature possessing universal sovereign authority.

---

Pacta Sunt Servanda

Once a treaty has entered into force and is binding upon a state, the principle of pacta sunt servanda becomes fundamental.

The phrase means that agreements must be kept.

Under the Vienna Convention, every treaty in force is binding upon the parties and must be performed by them in good faith.

This principle connects treaty formation to treaty performance.

The state first gives legally valid consent. Once the treaty becomes binding, the state is expected to perform its obligations in good faith.

---

Can a State Change Its Mind After Ratification?

Ratification is not normally equivalent to a political promise that can simply be withdrawn whenever circumstances change.

Once a state has validly expressed consent and the treaty has entered into force for that state, international law governs the state’s ability to withdraw, suspend, or terminate the treaty.

The treaty itself may contain withdrawal provisions.

If it does not, international law may provide additional rules.

Withdrawal therefore requires a legal basis; political dissatisfaction alone does not automatically terminate treaty obligations.

---

Treaty Formation and Withdrawal

Withdrawal is generally a separate legal question from treaty formation.

A state first becomes a party through valid consent and entry into force.

Later, it may seek to withdraw.

The applicable rules may depend upon:

• the treaty’s own provisions;
• the agreement of the parties;
• or relevant rules of international law.

Some treaties permit withdrawal on specified conditions. Others make withdrawal more difficult or provide no express withdrawal mechanism.

This is why treaty membership must be analyzed over time rather than treated as a permanent legal status created by a single signature.

---

Why Ratification Matters in International Law

Ratification performs an important constitutional and international function.

It gives states a mechanism through which negotiated treaty commitments can receive the additional approval required by the state’s legal system.

At the same time, ratification communicates internationally that the state has decided to accept the treaty as legally binding.

The process therefore connects two legal orders:

domestic constitutional law and international law.

The domestic process determines how a government reaches the decision to ratify.

International law determines the consequences of the resulting international consent.

---

Common Misconceptions About Treaty Formation

“Signing a treaty always makes a state legally bound.”

Not necessarily. The treaty may require ratification, acceptance, approval, or another act of consent.

“Ratification is purely a domestic procedure.”

No. Domestic approval may be necessary before ratification, but ratification also has an international legal function: it expresses consent to be bound.

“A state that helped negotiate a treaty automatically becomes a party.”

No. Participation in negotiations does not necessarily establish consent to be bound.

“Accession is the same as signature.”

No. Accession generally allows a state that did not sign during the original signature period to become a party later.

“A treaty becomes effective as soon as it is signed.”

Not necessarily. Entry into force depends upon the treaty’s provisions and the applicable method of consent.

“Domestic law can always excuse failure to comply with a treaty.”

No. International law generally does not permit states to rely on internal law as a general justification for failing to perform international obligations.

“All treaties are formed in exactly the same way.”

No. Treaty procedures differ according to the instrument, the participating states, and the method of consent established by the treaty.

---

Why Treaty Formation Matters

Treaty formation is the legal architecture behind international cooperation.

A treaty cannot operate effectively merely because governments have political intentions. International law must determine:

• who has authority to negotiate;
• how the text is adopted;
• how the text becomes authentic;
• what signature means;
• whether ratification is required;
• how consent is expressed;
• when obligations begin;
• how reservations operate;
• how membership expands;
• and what happens when a state later seeks to withdraw.

These rules create predictability.

Without them, states could disagree constantly about whether an agreement had actually become legally binding.

Treaty formation therefore performs a foundational function in the international legal system: it converts negotiated international commitments into recognizable legal obligations.

---

Key Takeaways

Treaty formation is a multi-stage legal process, not simply the signing of a document.

The principal stages may include negotiation, adoption, authentication, signature, consent to be bound, ratification or another form of approval, and entry into force.

Signature does not always equal consent to be bound. Its legal effect depends upon the treaty and the circumstances.

Ratification is a formal international act of consent to be bound, usually following signature where the treaty requires ratification.

Accession generally allows a state that did not originally sign the treaty to become a party later.

Entry into force determines when the treaty becomes legally operative according to its own provisions.

Domestic constitutional approval and international consent are related but distinct concepts.

Reservations can modify the legal effect of treaty provisions for a particular state when permitted by international law.

States that have signed a treaty subject to ratification may have certain interim obligations, including the duty in appropriate circumstances not to defeat the treaty’s object and purpose.

Once a treaty is in force, the principle of pacta sunt servanda requires the parties to perform it in good faith.

---

Frequently Asked Questions

What is treaty formation?

Treaty formation is the legal process through which states negotiate, adopt, authenticate, accept, and bring an international agreement into legal force.

What is ratification?

Ratification is the formal international act by which a state confirms its consent to be bound by a treaty when the treaty requires ratification.

Does signing a treaty make it binding?

Not always. Some treaties become binding through signature, while others require ratification, acceptance, approval, accession, or another specified procedure.

What is the difference between ratification and accession?

Ratification generally follows a state’s signature of a treaty. Accession generally allows a state that did not sign the treaty during the original signature period to become a party later.

When does a treaty enter into force?

A treaty enters into force according to the conditions established by its provisions, which may include a particular date, a required number of ratifications, or another specified condition.

Can a state sign a treaty without ratifying it?

Yes. Where a treaty is subject to ratification, a state can sign the treaty and later decide not to ratify it.

Are domestic approval and ratification the same thing?

Not necessarily. Domestic approval is governed by the state’s constitutional system, while ratification has an international legal function of expressing consent to be bound.

Can a state use its domestic law to avoid treaty obligations?

Generally, no. International law treats a state’s international obligations separately from its internal constitutional arrangements, subject to the limited exceptions recognized by treaty law.

What is a treaty reservation?

A reservation is a unilateral statement by which a state seeks to exclude or modify the legal effect of certain treaty provisions in their application to that state, subject to the applicable rules.

Why is treaty formation important?

Treaty formation provides the legal procedures that determine when negotiations become binding international commitments. It creates certainty about consent, authority, obligations, and entry into force.

---

Conclusion

Treaty formation is one of the clearest examples of how international law transforms political agreement into legal obligation.

The process begins with negotiation but does not end there. States must establish the authoritative text, determine the method through which consent will be expressed, satisfy any required ratification or approval procedures, and comply with the conditions for entry into force.

The distinction between signature and ratification, and between domestic approval and international consent, is particularly important. A treaty may be politically significant long before it becomes legally binding, and a state may participate extensively in negotiations without ultimately becoming a party.

Once valid consent has been expressed and the treaty has entered into force, however, the relationship changes. The treaty becomes a source of international legal obligations, and the principle of good-faith performance becomes central.

Treaty formation therefore represents more than diplomatic procedure. It is the legal mechanism through which sovereign states deliberately create binding rules governing their relations.

In international law, consent creates the treaty relationship, entry into force activates it, and good-faith performance sustains it.